Henry Sanders v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 12-2385 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2385 HENRY T. SANDERS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:12-cv-02518-DKC) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren M. Burnette, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry T. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court s order to file an amended complaint providing a factual basis and stating the relief sought. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 54(b); 541, interlocutory U.S. P. 545 46 The order Sanders seeks to appeal is neither a final appealable 337 Civ. (1949). an Corp., R. Beneficial nor Loan Fed. Cohen v. order Indus. (2006); or collateral order because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no amendment to the case complaint (internal Rivendell Woods, could cure quotation Inc., the marks 415 defects in omitted)); F.3d 342, 345 the see plaintiff s also (4th Chao Cir. v. 2005) (explaining that, under Domino Sugar, this court must examine the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and repetitive appeals ). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of 2 jurisdiction. We dispense contentions We grant Sanders motion to file a reply brief. with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3